Preview
Filed 10 December 17 P2:40
Loren J ackson - District Clerk
2010-82078 / Court: 295 Harris Coun!
ED101) 016101049
NO-
By: Furshilla McGee
JOHN OKAFOR AND PIUS OKAFOR IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs,
Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ANTHONY OBI OGBO
INDIVIDUALLY AND a/k/a
INTERNATIONAL GUARDIAN
Defendants. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COME John Okafor and Pius Okafor, hereinafter called Plaintiffs, complaining of and about
Anthony Obi Ogbo, Individually a/k/a International Guardian, hereinafter called Defendant, and for cause
of action show unto the Court the following:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL
Plaintiffs intend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 2.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff, John Okafor, is an Individual who resides in Brazoria County, Texas.
3 Plaintiff, Pius Okafor, is an Individual who resides in Harris County, Texas.
4 Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo Individually and a/k/a International Guardian, an Individual
who is a resident of Texas, may be served with process at his office at the following address: 6420
Hillcroft, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77081. Service of said Defendant as described above can be effected by
personal delivery.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
6. This court has personal jurisdiction herein because Defendant is a Texas residents.
7
Venue in Harris County is proper in this cause pursuant to Section 17.56 of the Texas
1[Page Plaintif Ori nal Petiti a Okafo Ogbo et al
Business and Commerce Code and under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this county.
FACTS
8 Plaintiffs are private citizens of Texas. Plaintiffs are originally from Anambra State, which
is located in the eastern part of Nigeria. The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas.
9 Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo is also from the eastern part of Nigeria and is the publisher of
International Guardian (Guardian), an unincorporated entity. International Guardian is a monthly
publication that has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The Guardian has worldwide
circulation in the African community and the Nigerian community in particular. Guardian is published on
the web at www.examiner.com.
10. Plaintiffs are from Anambra State and are the members of Anambra State Community in
Houston, Inc. On October 18, 2010, Anambra State Community in Houston filed a suit against Christian
Chinwuba Ulasi in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case is still pending.
Christian Chinwuba Ulasi is a friend of Defendant Ogbo. Mr. Ogbo featured a lavishing editorial of Mr.
Ulasi in an October 2010 Guardian edition as a benevolent community personality.
11. During a meeting held in the office of ANASCO attorney on November 12, 2010, the
attorney for Christian Chinwuba Ulasi threatened to sue Plaintiffs, Pius Okafor and John Okafor, for the
sole purpose of smearing Plaintiffs’ names in retaliation for the suit filed against Mr. Ulasi.
12. On November 19, 2010, Vincent Nweke d/b/a Anambra State Community, Houston, under
the representation of the same attorney that threatened to smear the names of the Plaintiffs, filed a half-
baked suit in the 295" Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, against John Okafor, Pius Okafor,
Nelson Ilodigwe, Jenny Ogadi, Sylvester Arubaleze and Anambra State Community in Houston alleging
that the Defendants in that suit used false identity to withdraw the ANASCO funds. At the time the suit
was filed, the funds that were allegedly fraudulently withdrawn from the ANASCO account was actually in
2|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al
ANASCO account. It was after the Defendants published the current article that it became clear why the
suit in the 295" District Court in Harris County was filed. The only intent was to use the identity fraud
allegation to smear the Plaintiff's names and nothing more.
13. On December 1, 2010, John Okafor and Pius Okafor (among others), filed their original
answer, motion to abate, plea to the jurisdiction, special exceptions, motion for sanctions and counterclaim
in the 295" Judicial District Court. In their plea to the jurisdiction, the current plaintiffs asked the
Honorable Judge of the 295th Judicial District of Harris Count, Texas to dismiss the suit because the same case
was pending in another court in Harris County. Furthermore, the current Plaintiffs sought sanctions against the
attorney Mr. Chukelu and his client, Vincent Nweke for filing a frivolous suit alleging that the current
Plaintiffs stole the ANASCO funds through identity fraud when the funds were actually in the accounts of
ANASCO at the time the suit was filed. Mr. Nweke used the ANASCO name to file the suit and had no standing.
The publication did not make any reference to the response pleadings filed by the defendants in that suit. The
Defendant did not employ due diligence in his publication.
14. On December 7, 2010, Defendant published an article in the Guardian about the Plaintiffs.
The article titled: “Pius Okafor, Others Dragged to Court Over Identity Fraud, Conspiracy.” The article
claimed that “the lawsuit (was) filed 11 November, 2010.” It is clearly evident that the publisher obtained
the lawsuit (possibly from the attorney in that suit) before the suit was actually filed in the District Court on
November 19, 2010. The publication argued that “/nternational Guardian gathered that Mr. Okafor and
his team have been issued with unspecified memos before this suit.” Plaintiffs are unaware of any memo
that was issued before the suit was filed. That fact buttresses the allegation that the attorney and the
plaintiffin the suit in the 295" court conspired with the Defendants in this suit to defame John Okafor and
Pius Okafor, and used the Guardian as a medium to deliver the negative campaign. Rather than promote
and accentuate the achievements of Nigerians in Houston, Guardian and Anthony Ogbo have availed
themselves as conduit for destruction and intimidation of fellow Nigerians in Houston.
3(/Page Plaint f s Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al
15. Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo wrote the article and published the Plaintiffs on the front
page of his newspaper as the leading story for that particular monthly publication. The newspaper pictured
both Mr. Pius Okafor and his son Emeka Okafor, with Emeka Okafor holding NBA basketball and wearing
the New Orleans Hornets’ jersey.
16. In that article made the basis of this suit, the Defendants depicted the Plaintiffs as fraudulent
individuals. More damagingly, the Defendants published the article accusing Plaintiffs of inciting
militancy, sponsoring terrorism and kidnappings in Nigeria. Pius Okafor is the father of the National
Basketball Association's star, Emeka Okafor; and the Defendants used the picture of Emeka Okafor, who is
not a party to the suit — as avenue for cheap publicity to aggrandize Guardian.
17. In its salacious publication, the Guardian stated that "daddy Okafor, (was) exploiting his
son's fame for personal benefits" among other things. The publication further stated that "Community
members, including individuals from his own village of Enugwu-Ukwu, claim Mr. Okafor has been
exploiting his son’s wealth and fame to destabilize the community. According to one of his village members
who opted for anonymity, ‘He is no longer in our meeting because all he does is cause trouble and cause
chaos ’." No source was quoted in the story. All quotations were by unnamed sources.
18. The Guardian publication accused Plaintiff John Okafor of sponsoring terrorism in Anambra
State of Nigeria. In the same publication, the Guardian reported that “The group, it was gathered,
collaborated with Houston accomplices led by a resident John Okafor to instigate chaos in Anambra Sate
as a strategy to unarm the governor's swelling popularity. Coincidentally, the same John Okafor was
mentioned in the impending lawsuit. It is unclear if ‘basketball dad’ Pius Okafor was connected to that
October plot.” The statement is factually false and had no merit whatsoever except to defame the Plaintiffs.
19. In an October 2010 publication, the same Guardian published a story about John Okafor.
The story is similar to the editorial publication made the basis of this suit. In the October 2010 publication,
in which Mr. Ogbo was the editorialist, Mr. John Okafor was mentioned by name as a collaborator spurring
4|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al
insurrection in Anambra State of Nigeria. The article “Chaos in Nigeria Linked to Houston?” stated that
the information was gathered from unnamed sources.
20. The front page of the October 2010 publication pictured Plaintiff John Okafor and the
governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi. The October publication made the following conclusion: “4
collusion between owners of an internet propaganda blog ‘Ukpaka Report,’ operated by one Ikenna
Ezenekwe, and unidentified political interest groups in Nigeria may have backfired. The group, it was,
collaborated with Houston accomplices led by a resident John Okafor to instigate chaos in Anambra State
as a strategy to unarm the governor's swelling popularity.” The publication contained other damaging
insinuations and direct unverified accusations of both fraud and terrorism plot against Mr. John Okafor.
21. The same October 2010 publication featured the same Chris Chinwuba Ulasi as “Who is
Who: Africans in Diaspora.” The editorial on Mr. Ulasi praised Mr. Ulasi as an outstanding citizen of
Anambra State living in Houston. The same Mr. Ulasi that his attorney threatened to smear the names of
Mr. Pius Okafor, John Okafor and the other members of Anambra State Community in Houston, Inc. The
comments in the October article were attributable to Mr. Vincent Nweke — the same Nweke that filed a suit
against Pius Okafor and John Okafor in the 295" Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. It is clear
that the publication was a planned revenge against the Plaintiffs for suing Mr. Ulasi.
22. The publication insinuated that Pius Okafor is using his wealth (or his son's) to instigate
kidnappings in Nigeria: "Nigerian investigators believe some affluent indigenes in the Diaspora may be
behind various unrests that challenge the country’s peace and political stability."
23. The publication further stated that “Zn October, Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan
announced a link between current security crisis in Nigeria and dissidents residing outside the country,
claiming that recent events may have revealed collaborations between Nigerians overseas and dishonest
vandals at home, to destabilize various governments in wake of the up-coming 2011 elections.” Such
publication is an outright fabrication and meant to directly soil the names of the Plaintiffs when the world
5|Page Plaintif s Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al
is seriously combating terrorism, and Nigeria combating the pervasion of militancy and kidnappings.
PLAINTIFFS JOHN OKAFOR AND PIUS OKAFOR’S
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION
24. The elements of a defamation claim are (1) The defendant published a statement; (2) The
statement was defamatory concerning the plaintiff; (3) The defendant acted with (i) actual malice, if the
plaintiff
was a public official or public figure, or (ii) negligence, if the plaintiff
was a private individual,
regarding the truth of the statement. The elements are listed in WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d
568, 571 (Tex.1998).
25. LIBEL PER SE
A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the
dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred,
contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to
publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.
PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the
defendants acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3)
the defendants’ conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress
suffered by the plaintiffs was severe. Standard Fruit and Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 8.W.2d 62,
65-66 (Tex. 1998). In addition, the intended or primary consequence of the defendants’ conduct was to
cause emotional distress, not physical injury. Jd. at 68; Durckel v. St. Joseph Hosp., 78 S.W.3d 576, 586
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY
(PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS)
27. An individual has the right to be free from the public disclosure of embarrassing private
6|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al
facts about the individual. /ndustrial Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668,
682 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1550, 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977). To establish the tort of
invasion of privacy based upon the public disclosure of private facts, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that
(1) publicity was given to matters concerning their private life, (2) the publication of which would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, and (3) the matter publicized was not of
legitimate public concern. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 8.W.2d 471, 473-74 (Tex.1995); Industrial
Found. of the South, 540 S.W.2d at 682.
ACTUAL DAMAGES
28. Plaintiffs sustained the following actual damages as a result of the actions and/or omissions
of Defendants described hereinabove:
(a) General damages.
DAMAGES FOR MENTAL ANGUISH
29. Plaintiffs would further show that the false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or
omissions described hereinabove were committed "knowingly," as provided by Section 17.45(9) of the
Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or
unfairness of such acts, practices, and/or omissions.
30. As a result of such acts, practices and/or omissions, Plaintiffs sustained a high degree of
mental pain and distress of such nature, duration and severity that would permit the recovery of damages
for mental anguish pursuant to Section 17.50(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and for which
Plaintiffs hereby sue in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
31. Plaintiffs would further show that the acts and omissions of Defendants complained of
herein were committed knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and with the specific and
predetermined intention of enriching said Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs. In order to punish said
T\Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al
Defendants for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future,
Plaintiffs also seek recovery from Defendants for exemplary damages as provided section 41.003 of Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
32. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by or on
behalf
of Plaintiffs herein, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, John Okafor and Pius Okafor,
respectfully pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of
the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the actual
damages requested hereinabove in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court,
together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, attorney's fees,
costs of court, a strong retraction of the article made the basis of this suit, and such other and further relief
to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity, whether pled or unpled.
Respectfully submitted,
By. /s/Alphonsus O. Ezeoke
Alphonsus O. Ezeoke
Texas Bar No. 24025356
1810 Cravens Road, Suite C
Stafford, Texas 77477
Tel. (281) 499-0505
Fax. (281) 499-8282
Attorney for Plaintiffs
John Okafor and Pius Okafor
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST A TRIAL BY JURY
8[Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al
Preview
Filed 10 December 17 P2:40 Loren J ackson - District Clerk 2010-82078 / Court: 295 Harris Coun! ED101) 016101049 NO- By: Furshilla McGee JOHN OKAFOR AND PIUS OKAFOR IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT ANTHONY OBI OGBO INDIVIDUALLY AND a/k/a INTERNATIONAL GUARDIAN Defendants. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME John Okafor and Pius Okafor, hereinafter called Plaintiffs, complaining of and about Anthony Obi Ogbo, Individually a/k/a International Guardian, hereinafter called Defendant, and for cause of action show unto the Court the following: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL Plaintiffs intend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 2. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff, John Okafor, is an Individual who resides in Brazoria County, Texas. 3 Plaintiff, Pius Okafor, is an Individual who resides in Harris County, Texas. 4 Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo Individually and a/k/a International Guardian, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, may be served with process at his office at the following address: 6420 Hillcroft, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77081. Service of said Defendant as described above can be effected by personal delivery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5 The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 6. This court has personal jurisdiction herein because Defendant is a Texas residents. 7 Venue in Harris County is proper in this cause pursuant to Section 17.56 of the Texas 1[Page Plaintif Ori nal Petiti a Okafo Ogbo et al Business and Commerce Code and under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this county. FACTS 8 Plaintiffs are private citizens of Texas. Plaintiffs are originally from Anambra State, which is located in the eastern part of Nigeria. The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas. 9 Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo is also from the eastern part of Nigeria and is the publisher of International Guardian (Guardian), an unincorporated entity. International Guardian is a monthly publication that has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The Guardian has worldwide circulation in the African community and the Nigerian community in particular. Guardian is published on the web at www.examiner.com. 10. Plaintiffs are from Anambra State and are the members of Anambra State Community in Houston, Inc. On October 18, 2010, Anambra State Community in Houston filed a suit against Christian Chinwuba Ulasi in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case is still pending. Christian Chinwuba Ulasi is a friend of Defendant Ogbo. Mr. Ogbo featured a lavishing editorial of Mr. Ulasi in an October 2010 Guardian edition as a benevolent community personality. 11. During a meeting held in the office of ANASCO attorney on November 12, 2010, the attorney for Christian Chinwuba Ulasi threatened to sue Plaintiffs, Pius Okafor and John Okafor, for the sole purpose of smearing Plaintiffs’ names in retaliation for the suit filed against Mr. Ulasi. 12. On November 19, 2010, Vincent Nweke d/b/a Anambra State Community, Houston, under the representation of the same attorney that threatened to smear the names of the Plaintiffs, filed a half- baked suit in the 295" Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, against John Okafor, Pius Okafor, Nelson Ilodigwe, Jenny Ogadi, Sylvester Arubaleze and Anambra State Community in Houston alleging that the Defendants in that suit used false identity to withdraw the ANASCO funds. At the time the suit was filed, the funds that were allegedly fraudulently withdrawn from the ANASCO account was actually in 2|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al ANASCO account. It was after the Defendants published the current article that it became clear why the suit in the 295" District Court in Harris County was filed. The only intent was to use the identity fraud allegation to smear the Plaintiff's names and nothing more. 13. On December 1, 2010, John Okafor and Pius Okafor (among others), filed their original answer, motion to abate, plea to the jurisdiction, special exceptions, motion for sanctions and counterclaim in the 295" Judicial District Court. In their plea to the jurisdiction, the current plaintiffs asked the Honorable Judge of the 295th Judicial District of Harris Count, Texas to dismiss the suit because the same case was pending in another court in Harris County. Furthermore, the current Plaintiffs sought sanctions against the attorney Mr. Chukelu and his client, Vincent Nweke for filing a frivolous suit alleging that the current Plaintiffs stole the ANASCO funds through identity fraud when the funds were actually in the accounts of ANASCO at the time the suit was filed. Mr. Nweke used the ANASCO name to file the suit and had no standing. The publication did not make any reference to the response pleadings filed by the defendants in that suit. The Defendant did not employ due diligence in his publication. 14. On December 7, 2010, Defendant published an article in the Guardian about the Plaintiffs. The article titled: “Pius Okafor, Others Dragged to Court Over Identity Fraud, Conspiracy.” The article claimed that “the lawsuit (was) filed 11 November, 2010.” It is clearly evident that the publisher obtained the lawsuit (possibly from the attorney in that suit) before the suit was actually filed in the District Court on November 19, 2010. The publication argued that “/nternational Guardian gathered that Mr. Okafor and his team have been issued with unspecified memos before this suit.” Plaintiffs are unaware of any memo that was issued before the suit was filed. That fact buttresses the allegation that the attorney and the plaintiffin the suit in the 295" court conspired with the Defendants in this suit to defame John Okafor and Pius Okafor, and used the Guardian as a medium to deliver the negative campaign. Rather than promote and accentuate the achievements of Nigerians in Houston, Guardian and Anthony Ogbo have availed themselves as conduit for destruction and intimidation of fellow Nigerians in Houston. 3(/Page Plaint f s Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al 15. Defendant Anthony Obi Ogbo wrote the article and published the Plaintiffs on the front page of his newspaper as the leading story for that particular monthly publication. The newspaper pictured both Mr. Pius Okafor and his son Emeka Okafor, with Emeka Okafor holding NBA basketball and wearing the New Orleans Hornets’ jersey. 16. In that article made the basis of this suit, the Defendants depicted the Plaintiffs as fraudulent individuals. More damagingly, the Defendants published the article accusing Plaintiffs of inciting militancy, sponsoring terrorism and kidnappings in Nigeria. Pius Okafor is the father of the National Basketball Association's star, Emeka Okafor; and the Defendants used the picture of Emeka Okafor, who is not a party to the suit — as avenue for cheap publicity to aggrandize Guardian. 17. In its salacious publication, the Guardian stated that "daddy Okafor, (was) exploiting his son's fame for personal benefits" among other things. The publication further stated that "Community members, including individuals from his own village of Enugwu-Ukwu, claim Mr. Okafor has been exploiting his son’s wealth and fame to destabilize the community. According to one of his village members who opted for anonymity, ‘He is no longer in our meeting because all he does is cause trouble and cause chaos ’." No source was quoted in the story. All quotations were by unnamed sources. 18. The Guardian publication accused Plaintiff John Okafor of sponsoring terrorism in Anambra State of Nigeria. In the same publication, the Guardian reported that “The group, it was gathered, collaborated with Houston accomplices led by a resident John Okafor to instigate chaos in Anambra Sate as a strategy to unarm the governor's swelling popularity. Coincidentally, the same John Okafor was mentioned in the impending lawsuit. It is unclear if ‘basketball dad’ Pius Okafor was connected to that October plot.” The statement is factually false and had no merit whatsoever except to defame the Plaintiffs. 19. In an October 2010 publication, the same Guardian published a story about John Okafor. The story is similar to the editorial publication made the basis of this suit. In the October 2010 publication, in which Mr. Ogbo was the editorialist, Mr. John Okafor was mentioned by name as a collaborator spurring 4|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al insurrection in Anambra State of Nigeria. The article “Chaos in Nigeria Linked to Houston?” stated that the information was gathered from unnamed sources. 20. The front page of the October 2010 publication pictured Plaintiff John Okafor and the governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi. The October publication made the following conclusion: “4 collusion between owners of an internet propaganda blog ‘Ukpaka Report,’ operated by one Ikenna Ezenekwe, and unidentified political interest groups in Nigeria may have backfired. The group, it was, collaborated with Houston accomplices led by a resident John Okafor to instigate chaos in Anambra State as a strategy to unarm the governor's swelling popularity.” The publication contained other damaging insinuations and direct unverified accusations of both fraud and terrorism plot against Mr. John Okafor. 21. The same October 2010 publication featured the same Chris Chinwuba Ulasi as “Who is Who: Africans in Diaspora.” The editorial on Mr. Ulasi praised Mr. Ulasi as an outstanding citizen of Anambra State living in Houston. The same Mr. Ulasi that his attorney threatened to smear the names of Mr. Pius Okafor, John Okafor and the other members of Anambra State Community in Houston, Inc. The comments in the October article were attributable to Mr. Vincent Nweke — the same Nweke that filed a suit against Pius Okafor and John Okafor in the 295" Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. It is clear that the publication was a planned revenge against the Plaintiffs for suing Mr. Ulasi. 22. The publication insinuated that Pius Okafor is using his wealth (or his son's) to instigate kidnappings in Nigeria: "Nigerian investigators believe some affluent indigenes in the Diaspora may be behind various unrests that challenge the country’s peace and political stability." 23. The publication further stated that “Zn October, Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan announced a link between current security crisis in Nigeria and dissidents residing outside the country, claiming that recent events may have revealed collaborations between Nigerians overseas and dishonest vandals at home, to destabilize various governments in wake of the up-coming 2011 elections.” Such publication is an outright fabrication and meant to directly soil the names of the Plaintiffs when the world 5|Page Plaintif s Ori nal Petition Okafo t Ogbo et al is seriously combating terrorism, and Nigeria combating the pervasion of militancy and kidnappings. PLAINTIFFS JOHN OKAFOR AND PIUS OKAFOR’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION 24. The elements of a defamation claim are (1) The defendant published a statement; (2) The statement was defamatory concerning the plaintiff; (3) The defendant acted with (i) actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure, or (ii) negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. The elements are listed in WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). 25. LIBEL PER SE A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury. PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 26. To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendants acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendants’ conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs was severe. Standard Fruit and Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 8.W.2d 62, 65-66 (Tex. 1998). In addition, the intended or primary consequence of the defendants’ conduct was to cause emotional distress, not physical injury. Jd. at 68; Durckel v. St. Joseph Hosp., 78 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY (PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS) 27. An individual has the right to be free from the public disclosure of embarrassing private 6|Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al facts about the individual. /ndustrial Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 682 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1550, 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977). To establish the tort of invasion of privacy based upon the public disclosure of private facts, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) publicity was given to matters concerning their private life, (2) the publication of which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, and (3) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 8.W.2d 471, 473-74 (Tex.1995); Industrial Found. of the South, 540 S.W.2d at 682. ACTUAL DAMAGES 28. Plaintiffs sustained the following actual damages as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove: (a) General damages. DAMAGES FOR MENTAL ANGUISH 29. Plaintiffs would further show that the false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions described hereinabove were committed "knowingly," as provided by Section 17.45(9) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of such acts, practices, and/or omissions. 30. As a result of such acts, practices and/or omissions, Plaintiffs sustained a high degree of mental pain and distress of such nature, duration and severity that would permit the recovery of damages for mental anguish pursuant to Section 17.50(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and for which Plaintiffs hereby sue in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 31. Plaintiffs would further show that the acts and omissions of Defendants complained of herein were committed knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and with the specific and predetermined intention of enriching said Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs. In order to punish said T\Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al Defendants for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, Plaintiffs also seek recovery from Defendants for exemplary damages as provided section 41.003 of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. ATTORNEY'S FEES 32. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs herein, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, John Okafor and Pius Okafor, respectfully pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the actual damages requested hereinabove in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, attorney's fees, costs of court, a strong retraction of the article made the basis of this suit, and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity, whether pled or unpled. Respectfully submitted, By. /s/Alphonsus O. Ezeoke Alphonsus O. Ezeoke Texas Bar No. 24025356 1810 Cravens Road, Suite C Stafford, Texas 77477 Tel. (281) 499-0505 Fax. (281) 499-8282 Attorney for Plaintiffs John Okafor and Pius Okafor PLAINTIFFS REQUEST A TRIAL BY JURY 8[Page Plaintiffs Ori nal Petiti a Okafo t Ogbo et al